Message 04141 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 7/27 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] Re: [ox-en] built-in infinite growth (was: Re:Meaning ofmarkets, scarcity, abundance)


On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:40:26 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED], Gregers Petersen <gp.ioa cbs.dk> wrote:


Dmytri Kleiner wrote:



(villages) combining a kind of ritual status display with
re-distribution of resources - through the process of giving away ritual
objects, food articles etc. The original cycle of exchange was probably
rather stable, and primarily aimed at the reproduction of society and
relations.


My understanding is that it was often competative, indicating that more
had to be given more than was received in the previous cycle, or else
status (and potentially power and even life) was lost. To be unable to
give more than you received was a disgrace that a chief could ill afford,
and of course the source of the wealth in the exchange was not the chief
exclusively, but rather appropriated surplus production.



In both cases there is a lack of accumulation of capital (or similars,
which then would need to be converted into a more "storable" form =
money) in the hands of individuals, resources are either re-distributed
across the tribe as a whole or destroyed ...


Yes, but this supports the Gesselian critique of Money, not what Stefan was
saying,
that the M-C-M' cycle is the source of "infinite expansion."

Despite possible "Infinite Expansion" chiefdoms where still less stratified
than
capitalist society. Money as atrificaly durable store of value does however
play a role
in accelerating _stratification_.

While chiefs could raise great surplus for public efforts, including things
like potlach,
they could not as effectively approrpiate great surplus for themselves,
unlike accumulating
Capitalists, and often where not completely removed from being direct
producers themselves.



Do you disagree with the claim that money originates in tribute and
prestige exchange and not exchange among
direct-producers?



The devil is in the detail - and I just stated that you should not use
'kula' as an example of 'money' (because it simply undermines your
argument).


Hey, don't worry about undermining my argument! Please _give us_ the
details
so we can investigate my argument. Allusions to don't help. "consensus
among anthropologist
say this or that" is a form of the special pleading fallacy, not an
argument that can help us
understand the issue.



I'm in doubt about your claim that money originates in
tribute and prestige exchange, though it would tie well into the
emergence of the state structure as form of social organization ...


Then what is the basis for your doubt?


-- 
Dmytri Kleiner
editing text files since 1981

http://www.telekommunisten.net


_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT04118 Message: 7/27 L6 [In index]
Message 04141 [Homepage] [Navigation]